why would god want us to worship him?

Yes, "truth" is a matter of perspective, but not all perspectives are equally beneficial, nutritious, useful, liberating, etc.

Are there no absolutes, then?

if there are none, is that a contradiction? If there are no absolutes, isnt that in itself something that is absolute?

Precisely what I was asking JL, though more to the point.

I think you have to look very closely at the application of the term absolute. It seems limited in scope at best, agreed upon consensus is very often inter-changeable with absolute. When the topic is as grand in scope as God or ultimate reality, what meaning does it have? Can an individual confirm or create an absolute? It takes an individual to make a statement like, "there are no absolutes", which is itself, a relative statement because it is made by the individual. Presumably, reality knows no such terms. Absolutes have no meaning outside the scope of the individual because they are always made with reference to or in association with individuals. Hmmm...

Did you read that, Neo?

Are you saying that absolutes may exist in reality, but individuals perceive things only relative to themselves. I would agree with that.

But it seems that, inextricably linked to the concept of absolute, is the necessity for an observer to observe said absolutism. So fact A is only absolute if it has been observed to pass whatever test is set. This means to me that "absolutes" as we talk of them, are wholly of the human domain and because things that are deemed absolute are always in relation to an observer, they are relative. Now I know people talk of ultimate observers AKA God who observe absolutes in reality we do not but once again, for it to be absolute, it must be observable, when it is observed, it is in relation, it's therefore relative.

Why would it be necessary for an observer to observe said absolutism? It's kind of like if a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound? No?

Or if I say something and my wife doesn't hear it, am I still wrong?

OK a couple of things. Firstly I guess the tree falling in a forest is a case of what you define sound as, alternating compressions travelling through air or a sensation interpreted by neurons. I always ask a question back though, how do you know the tree has even fallen? Presumably the answer is that a tree trunk is seen lying horizontally in the forest which just goes to show the assumptions we make all the time. The assumption the tree has even fallen is just one more on top of the tree falling making a sound. This is what it's all about, assumptions. We can make these assumptions because we've seen countless other examples of trees actually falling, being there to hear the sound, to see the aftermath.

It seems to me though that what you are thinking about are simply "things", underlying processes in the universe that we are not directly aware of. Fair enough, I won't go down the road of existence-observer too far, what I take a little issue with is the absolute part of your posts. To make the statement, "X is absolute" takes an observer to check the condition and even then it can only be apparently absolute, but regardless X is therefore always relative. I think maybe you agreed with this in the other post but you left the door open for absolutes existing in reality beyond the individual perception. I don't see why you talk of absolutes in this way instead of just "things".

I think Wittgenstein gets mentioned here every now and then and maybe his being mentioned here is off topic but maybe not to an extent. He said..."Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent", and I think there is a huge something to that. IMHO we cannot say, "there are absolutes in reality but we cannot perceive them" because by implying their existence we are creating a relationship between them and ourselves which makes them relative. I see all existence as being mutual, no thing is an island unto itself never mind man, even an underlying law that we haven't written down yet, an understanding of something which eludes us is in relation to the rest of reality, it is relative to the rest of reality. An absolute cannot EXIST in reality without being relative to reality. For something to be absolute in my eyes it would need to be completely split off from the rest of the system but this is wordless & relationship-less at best and completely meaningless at worst.

Cyracuz - Excuse me if I am wrong, but is not this thread, this forum an expression of self and of free will? Perhaps I am failing to see your point about determinism, and if so, please enlighten me. To me, it seems a perspective issue - An individual can make decisions based upon desires that are born of his/her mind alone. Such as the one, for instance, to reply to posts here. Where is the determinism in this?

Asher - Under that assumption, what can I make of science, or, better yet, math?
It is my (arguably flawed) understanding, that science (and math especially) deals with absolutes, a complex set of laws that define to a large(or completely) extent the way the universe works.
But inside your extremely powerful notion of self, there seems to be no room for science. It is essentially a solipsistic point of view.

Hmm... These desicions are made by volition. But what of the choices available? I wanna wear shorts and sandals in november, but the climate here just won't allow it.
Went to the store to buy milk, but they were all out, so I was forced to chose something else.
Our "free will" is just how we percieve nature's determinism as exerted through us.

naj; Is the shortest distance between two points a straight line - or a geodesic? Axioms and laws vary with circumstance. We are able to describe reality only in relative terms.

But what I am contending is the existence of a fundamental reality, that which Edward III succinctly described: "It is as it is."

No one seriously denies the physical/biological limitations on free will.

Well, a few maybe.

What about "free will's" limitations to itself?

You want beef for dinner, but you only decided to buy ham and bread, for instance. What is free will one moment is determinism the next.

Well, you are right, of course. I wanted steak, but those rotisserie chickens in the front of the store smelled so good. . . But, I was mostly referring to our moral free will.

Is there a relevant distinction?

Najmelliw, it's not solipsistic as I see it because I don't see the notion of self as any more powerful, important, real or unreal than any other expression of nature which is how it appears to me. It's my (also flawed) understanding of science and math that they deal with apparent absolutes, facts that we are intrinsically in relation to having formulated them in words or equations and of which we will be the continual judge of apparent absoluteness in the future. Science and math, as I see it, define how we appreciate how the universe works which is all that matters.

Neologist, for a fundamental reality to exist, for it to be as it is, the implication in our words is that it is a thing, all things have an existence in relation to other things. This seems to be the nature of language. So if it "exists", this fundamental reality, it exists in relation to other things, maybe the processes we see in the universe for example. If it exists in relation to other things, it's relative rather than absolute. This is why I question the usage of absolute in this instance, why are the "fundamental realities" not just relative to all of reality, just like everything else. Having said that, this is also why I mentioned the idea that we cannot speak of such things because to speak, is to form words, words mis-represent fundamental realities as I see it. To even attach a labels is to go too far, again IMO.

Yet it is possible to imagine all the relative things as one singular process. To imagine it without a counterpart is difficult; the mind always presumes "outside of that". But the concept of everything as one thing is meaningful, and could be seen as absolute reality. But none of us can say anything about it, because the moment we do, we are addressing our own reality. Unless we are capable of observation centered around something other than selfness we will not see it, and since we are bound to expressing ourselves through dualism we can never express it.